R1b-L51 in Yamnaya: Lazaridis 2024

[jdean]

J2a could have been involved in the formation of PIE, as could lots of other haplogroups, clearly L51 and R1a weren't big players but nevertheless they were the groups that ended up spreading Late PIE despite this.

As to J2a being a member of the elite PIE founders, I struggle to imagine that being provable one way or the other the way things are going but this notion of the elites being the least visible seems rather odd to me, wouldn't they be the ones most likely to receive burials with all the bells and whistles and hence the most visible ?

[Cejo]

RCO is right , not just J1 but J2 also were along I2a the gigachad elite rulling over less robust less chad R1s with their narrow corded skulls.
https://twitter.com/Sulkalmakh/status/17...4388766093

Without assigning any Y-haplogroups - it is true that the elite is always a minority. Aristocracy initially comprises typically between 5 and 20% of the population. It comes into power by force, and it arises when a small group of invaders is military so superior, that it can layer and control a much larger population. It is also an interesting phenomenon that the layered lower class often takes (on an evolutionary level) the most advantage from this constellation: They typically grow in numbers, while the upper class tends to stagnate or to decline. Finally the social barrier might break up, members of the lower class enter the aristocracy, finally replacing the old elite. A good and well documented example is the history of the Roman Republic.

I want to point out that "gigachad" implies genetic superiority (wiki link). To suggest that genetic superiority is related to Y-haplogroup, and/or skull shape and robustness is ridiculous.

Next, the discussion of elites seems potentially overly simplistic. There are many ways that societies have distributed power, many of which do not match this narrative. I would suggest that in tribal societies, power was most frequently not imposed through force by outsiders, but rather accumulated based on kinship ties.

Further, are there studies that have analyzed the genetic success of "upper" vs. "lower" classes throughout history? I would imagine that this is highly dependent on the society, and I'm not sure that the Roman Republic is a good template in this situation.

[alanarchae]

RCO is right , not just J1 but J2 also were along I2a the gigachad elite rulling over less robust less chad R1s with their narrow corded skulls.
https://twitter.com/Sulkalmakh/status/17...4388766093

Without assigning any Y-haplogroups - it is true that the elite is always a minority. Aristocracy initially comprises typically between 5 and 20% of the population. It comes into power by force, and it arises when a small group of invaders is military so superior, that it can layer and control a much larger population. It is also an interesting phenomenon that the layered lower class often takes (on an evolutionary level) the most advantage from this constellation: They typically grow in numbers, while the upper class tends to stagnate or to decline. Finally the social barrier might break up, members of the lower class enter the aristocracy, finally replacing the old elite. A good and well documented example is the history of the Roman Republic.

I want to point out that "gigachad" implies genetic superiority (wiki link). To suggest that genetic superiority is related to Y-haplogroup, and/or skull shape and robustness is ridiculous.

Next, the discussion of elites seems potentially overly simplistic. There are many ways that societies have distributed power, many of which do not match this narrative. I would suggest that in tribal societies, power was most frequently not imposed through force by outsiders, but rather accumulated based on kinship ties.

Further, are there studies that have analyzed the genetic success of "upper" vs. "lower" classes throughout history? I would imagine that this is highly dependent on the society, and I'm not sure that the Roman Republic is a good template in this situation.

I think all genetic evidence would point to a clan based structure of lines of male descent. Within that there would be poweful sub branches of the clan but probably nothing like father to son royal dynasties. Probably a bunch of fairly close cousins would compete to be chief. The wealthier likely treated poorer people (likely often also their own more distant cousins) as clients, leasing them cattle for returns in products and obligations of labour and military service. I don’t think there was the kind of stabilised inflexible class structured of the sort you see in feudalism etc. Some  branches of the clan may have had hereditary roles as specialists like smiths, learned types, priests etc.

DNA evidence strongly suggests to me that from at least 4000-2000BC the structure was largely clan based perhaps with a hierarchy of a paramount clan that got recognised as overlord of a number of others (themselves probably yet more distant cousins of the other clans). That group of clans may be thought of as a tribe. The chief of  these more dominant clans could be thought of as a king of sorts. But I suspect these ‘kingdoms’ were v small and unstable. I think it was only after 2200BC that some areas developed something mote like a civic polity structure.  Core Unetice was an example that failed. Ancient DNA gives the impression that the P312 peoples who dominated the western half of europe were chronically clannish

[rmstevens2]

When staking outsized claims for a Y-DNA haplogroup that appears numerically unsuccessful in a particular region and among a particular population, the thing to do is elevate its members to the status of a ruling "elite". That relieves one of the necessity of finding much evidence of them. 

Aha! The members of that haplogroup must have been the numerically tiny "elite"! That's why there aren't that many of them (if any)!

J1 and J2 must have really been seriously "elite" among the early Indo-Europeans - they were so elite and so few in numbers you can't find them. A kind of absentee IE ruling elite. Looks like they were phoning it in from Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Look man, I wasn't the one to put that J2a dude in the central burial of the kurgan.
The "midle eastener" ,caucasian origin or just non local origin for part of proto indo european/ sredny stog aristocracy is clear, wich makes a lot of sense actually.

One single kurgan, dated  4359-4251 calBC, belonging to Krivyansky, and that led you to talk about J2 and J1 elites dominating R1s with "narrow skulls", all of which is inaccurate. That's what you've got; that's it. Pretty obviously, your claims are based on the mistaken belief (rather than actual evidence) that IE originated south of the Caucasus and was brought north to the steppe by the same people who carried CHG. 

Personally, I don't want to engage in a debate over the IE status of J2 and J1. I don't think it was wise of RCO and you to come over to the R1b-L51 subforum and this thread to stake out really weak and unsubstantiated claims of "gigachad" superiority and original Indo-European status, and to assert that your Y chromosome ancestors ruled over the submissive mass of poor, benighted R1s. 

Use the J2 and J1 subforums to do that, and make all the silly claims you want to make. Don't come over here and start fights. Say what you want in your own subforums. Probably no one else will notice.

[alanarchae]

RCO is right , not just J1 but J2 also were along I2a the gigachad elite rulling over less robust less chad R1s with their narrow corded skulls.
https://twitter.com/Sulkalmakh/status/17...4388766093

Without assigning any Y-haplogroups - it is true that the elite is always a minority. Aristocracy initially comprises typically between 5 and 20% of the population. It comes into power by force, and it arises when a small group of invaders is military so superior, that it can layer and control a much larger population. It is also an interesting phenomenon that the layered lower class often takes (on an evolutionary level) the most advantage from this constellation: They typically grow in numbers, while the upper class tends to stagnate or to decline. Finally the social barrier might break up, members of the lower class enter the aristocracy, finally replacing the old elite. A good and well documented example is the history of the Roman Republic.

I want to point out that "gigachad" implies genetic superiority (wiki link). To suggest that genetic superiority is related to Y-haplogroup, and/or skull shape and robustness is ridiculous.

Next, the discussion of elites seems potentially overly simplistic. There are many ways that societies have distributed power, many of which do not match this narrative. I would suggest that in tribal societies, power was most frequently not imposed through force by outsiders, but rather accumulated based on kinship ties.

Further, are there studies that have analyzed the genetic success of "upper" vs. "lower" classes throughout history? I would imagine that this is highly dependent on the society, and I'm not sure that the Roman Republic is a good template in this situation.

To me, the ancient DNA of 3500-2000BC and beyond in some areas looks incredibly like the structure of the early historic period in Ireland. It’s like the default basic IE socio-political structure without much further development. In Ireland the basic demographic reality was a top down push from high breeding chiefs and kings with the majority of them them experiencing gradual downward mobility over the succeeding generations. Becoming a king owed a great deal to chance of how your immediate ancestors faired. The great great grandsons of a king or chief would include individuals who ranged from kings to common farmer. It all depended on fickle fate. It was not like feudalism.

[Kaltmeister]

I want to point out that "gigachad" implies genetic superiority (wiki link). To suggest that genetic superiority is related to Y-haplogroup, and/or skull shape and robustness is ridiculous.

Okay, I didn't know that, but I tend to take it as an ironic remark, reflecting the overconfident acquisition of Indoeuropeans that can sometimes been observed in the "R1b community".

Next, the discussion of elites seems potentially overly simplistic. There are many ways that societies have distributed power, many of which do not match this narrative. I would suggest that in tribal societies, power was most frequently not imposed through force by outsiders, but rather accumulated based on kinship ties.
Further, are there studies that have analyzed the genetic success of "upper" vs. "lower" classes throughout history? I would imagine that this is highly dependent on the society, and I'm not sure that the Roman Republic is a good template in this situation.

This form of society is also based on kinship ties. If we follow the ideas of Fustel de Coulanges (La citè antique), all members of the Roman Patricians can offer sacrifices to the same ancestors, which means that they have the same genetic ancestry. The same he states about the Greek and Persian aristocracy. And Aristoteles says that the state/polis has initially developed from one, expanding family, probably describing the same principle.
In fact, when the early Romans would talk about the Roman People, they only refered to the small minority of Patricians. The majority of Plebejans is not part of this entity, they are originally treated as personal possession, assigned to the leading families. This makes it, by the way, difficult to speculate about the character of the "Roman" genetics, as some studies have done: This upper class has cremated their death, and at the beginning of the Imperial Age they were already at the bringe of extinction. So we will hardly find any "Roman" genetics.

Well, the Roman Republic is in fact a good example, because it is a well documented Indoeuropean society. And if you look at the classical Greeks, you find very similar conditions. All we learn about them is refering to a very thin upper class, the lower classes are hardly mentioned, as if they didn't exist. And in the end, these societies were declining, were lacking children, could hardly find enough men to build up their army. This is documented at least for Sparta and Theben. So, the demand for differentiation is legal, and I believe myself there are many different ways a society can develop. But this pattern appears to be typical for Indoeuropean societies.

[jdean]

But this pattern appears to be typical for Indoeuropean societies.

Be a tad surprised if this was only typical to IE, it sounds very human to me.

[Sephesakueu]

When staking outsized claims for a Y-DNA haplogroup that appears numerically unsuccessful in a particular region and among a particular population, the thing to do is elevate its members to the status of a ruling "elite". That relieves one of the necessity of finding much evidence of them. 

Aha! The members of that haplogroup must have been the numerically tiny "elite"! That's why there aren't that many of them (if any)!

J1 and J2 must have really been seriously "elite" among the early Indo-Europeans - they were so elite and so few in numbers you can't find them. A kind of absentee IE ruling elite. Looks like they were phoning it in from Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Look man, I wasn't the one to put that J2a dude in the central burial of the kurgan.
The "midle eastener" ,caucasian origin or just non local origin for part of proto indo european/ sredny stog aristocracy is clear, wich makes a lot of sense actually.

One single kurgan, dated  4359-4251 calBC, belonging to Krivyansky, and that led you to talk about J2 and J1 elites dominating R1s with "narrow skulls", all of which is inaccurate. That's what you've got; that's it. Pretty obviously, your claims are based on the mistaken belief (rather than actual evidence) that IE originated south of the Caucasus and was brought north to the steppe by the same people who carried CHG. 

Personally, I don't want to engage in a debate over the IE status of J2 and J1. I don't think it was wise of RCO and you to come over to the R1b-L51 subforum and this thread to stake out really weak and unsubstantiated claims of "gigachad" superiority and original Indo-European status, and to assert that your Y chromosome ancestors ruled over the submissive mass of poor, benighted R1s. 

It was just a joke...
But some egos can't take jokes . IE can have originated south of the caucasos tho, and I think its of relevance to the general debate the fact that sredny stog high profile burials are non R1b.

[rmstevens2]

Look man, I wasn't the one to put that J2a dude in the central burial of the kurgan.
The "midle eastener" ,caucasian origin or just non local origin for part of proto indo european/ sredny stog aristocracy is clear, wich makes a lot of sense actually.

One single kurgan, dated  4359-4251 calBC, belonging to Krivyansky, and that led you to talk about J2 and J1 elites dominating R1s with "narrow skulls", all of which is inaccurate. That's what you've got; that's it. Pretty obviously, your claims are based on the mistaken belief (rather than actual evidence) that IE originated south of the Caucasus and was brought north to the steppe by the same people who carried CHG. 

Personally, I don't want to engage in a debate over the IE status of J2 and J1. I don't think it was wise of RCO and you to come over to the R1b-L51 subforum and this thread to stake out really weak and unsubstantiated claims of "gigachad" superiority and original Indo-European status, and to assert that your Y chromosome ancestors ruled over the submissive mass of poor, benighted R1s. 

It was just a joke...
But some egos can't take jokes . IE can have originated south of the caucasos tho, and I think its of relevance to the general debate the fact that sredny stog high profile burials are non R1b.

There were no indications you were joking. But where are the Sredny Stog "high profile" burials you're talking about?

Can you post the sample numbers and the names of the paper or papers they come from?

[rmstevens2]

.  .  . But this pattern appears to be typical for Indoeuropean societies.

Honestly, I don't think it does. Look at the R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 clades that are most frequent in IE cultures. They display massive expansion reflected in Star Clusters that share a common male ancestor about 5,000 years ago. Their numbers exploded right as the steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans were expanding westward into peninsular Europe. 

The pattern is actually one of IE tribal patriarchs who enjoyed top breeding status, with numerous wives and numerous offspring, the males among whom also enjoyed favorable breeding status. 

The pattern is not that of a dwindling, minority elite whose Y chromosome descendants are few.

[Cejo]

Well, the Roman Republic is in fact a good example, because it is a well documented Indoeuropean society. And if you look at the classical Greeks, you find very similar conditions. All we learn about them is refering to a very thin upper class, the lower classes are hardly mentioned, as if they didn't exist. And in the end, these societies were declining, were lacking children, could hardly find enough men to build up their army. This is documented at least for Sparta and Theben. So, the demand for differentiation is legal, and I believe myself there are many different ways a society can develop. But this pattern appears to be typical for Indoeuropean societies.

That they all spoke some form of Indo-European language doesn't necessarily mean their societies were organized in a similar manner.

As others have pointed out, one other well-documented Indo-European society (Irish) featured a very different power structure than the Roman Republic, and a lack of children was not a problem. On the contrary, a large family was vital to obtaining and maintaining power, since fosterage was a fundamental basis of the political and material economy. Additionally, the Gaelic system of inheritance (broadly tanistry) meant that internal/familial competition was in many cases fiercer than that from outsiders, though it also favored preservation of broad genetic continuity. (https://kar.kent.ac.uk/10293/1/celtic_fosterage.pdf).

That is just one example, and likely doesn't describe the way things worked in a Yamnaya context. However, it contrasts sharply with the narrative you describe. I tend to agree with @alanarchae and @rmstevens2 that a power structure (and demographic path) more along these lines matches the evidence better.

[alanarchae]

I think likely the Latins were very much like the Celts - basically extended pastoral clans and tribes. Then a more complex clan+civic hybrid culture developed, likely due to major influence from the Etruscans. The change seems to have been rather rapid, the Latins going from rural pastoralist in little huts to urban semi-civic structure really rather rapidly.

[R.Rocca]

The question of whether R-L51 took the northern or Ukraine -> SE Poland route was likely already answered at the end of last year by Ringbauer and then reinforced in these recent April papers. The IBD shows Corded Ware's recent ancestor as Yamnaya/Afanasievo followed by a pickup of Poland GAC and Ukraine GAC. Notice no IBD sharing with any Danube Copper age groups!

Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA (Ringbauer, Dec. 2023)

Moreover, there are several intriguing observations regarding individuals associated with the Corded Ware culture, an important archaeological culture that appears across a vast area of Eastern, Central and Northern Europe between 3,000 and 2,400 BCE. Previous aDNA research showed Corded Ware groups to be the first people of these regions to carry high amounts of a distinct ancestry found in Eurasian Steppe pastoralists such as the Yamnaya, admixed with previous Final Neolithic farmer cultures30,31,36,37. Using IBD, we find that individuals from diverse Corded Ware cultural groups, including from Sweden (associated with the Battle Axe culture), Russia (Fatyanovo) and East/Central Europe share high amounts of long IBD with each other and also have IBD sharing up to 20 cM with various Yamnaya groups (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 3a,b,c). We find a distinctive IBD signal with the so-called Globular Amphora culture, in particular from Poland and Ukraine, who were Copper Age (Eneolithic) farmers around 3,000 BCE not yet carrying Steppe-like ancestry38,39. This IBD link to Globular Amphora appears for all Corded Ware groups in our analysis, including from as far away as Scandinavia and Russia (Fig. 4), which indicates that individuals related to Globular Amphora contexts from Eastern Europe must have had a major demographic impact early on in the genetic admixtures giving rise to various Corded Ware groups.

[parasar]

Without assigning any Y-haplogroups - it is true that the elite is always a minority. Aristocracy initially comprises typically between 5 and 20% of the population. It comes into power by force, and it arises when a small group of invaders is military so superior, that it can layer and control a much larger population. It is also an interesting phenomenon that the layered lower class often takes (on an evolutionary level) the most advantage from this constellation: They typically grow in numbers, while the upper class tends to stagnate or to decline. Finally the social barrier might break up, members of the lower class enter the aristocracy, finally replacing the old elite. A good and well documented example is the history of the Roman Republic.

When staking outsized claims for a Y-DNA haplogroup that appears numerically unsuccessful in a particular region and among a particular population, the thing to do is elevate its members to the status of a ruling "elite". That relieves one of the necessity of finding much evidence of them. 

Aha! The members of that haplogroup must have been the numerically tiny "elite"! That's why there aren't that many of them (if any)!

J1 and J2 must have really been seriously "elite" among the early Indo-Europeans - they were so elite and so few in numbers you can't find them. A kind of absentee IE ruling elite. Looks like they were phoning it in from Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Look man, I wasn't the one to put that J2a dude in the central burial of the kurgan.
The "midle eastener" ,caucasian origin or just non local origin for part of proto indo european/ sredny stog aristocracy is clear, wich makes a lot of sense actually.

If so, no shorter tail has wagged a dog this big.

[alanarchae]

The question of whether R-L51 took the northern or Ukraine -> SE Poland route was likely already answered at the end of last year by Ringbauer and then reinforced in these recent April papers. The IBD shows Corded Ware's recent ancestor as Yamnaya/Afanasievo followed by a pickup of Poland GAC and Ukraine GAC. Notice no IBD sharing with any Danube Copper age groups!

Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA (Ringbauer, Dec. 2023)

Moreover, there are several intriguing observations regarding individuals associated with the Corded Ware culture, an important archaeological culture that appears across a vast area of Eastern, Central and Northern Europe between 3,000 and 2,400 BCE. Previous aDNA research showed Corded Ware groups to be the first people of these regions to carry high amounts of a distinct ancestry found in Eurasian Steppe pastoralists such as the Yamnaya, admixed with previous Final Neolithic farmer cultures30,31,36,37. Using IBD, we find that individuals from diverse Corded Ware cultural groups, including from Sweden (associated with the Battle Axe culture), Russia (Fatyanovo) and East/Central Europe share high amounts of long IBD with each other and also have IBD sharing up to 20 cM with various Yamnaya groups (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 3a,b,c). We find a distinctive IBD signal with the so-called Globular Amphora culture, in particular from Poland and Ukraine, who were Copper Age (Eneolithic) farmers around 3,000 BCE not yet carrying Steppe-like ancestry38,39. This IBD link to Globular Amphora appears for all Corded Ware groups in our analysis, including from as far away as Scandinavia and Russia (Fig. 4), which indicates that individuals related to Globular Amphora contexts from Eastern Europe must have had a major demographic impact early on in the genetic admixtures giving rise to various Corded Ware groups.

I think this debate is settled. It’s extremely clear L151/CW took a north-west route from the steppes. Only the detail of the route or routes is up for debate.